English First Insider: The Politics of the Harriet Miers Nomination

President Bush's choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court is a reminder of the four things President George W. Bush has in common with his father, President George H.W. Bush.

First, both Bushes handsomely reward loyalty. Then-New Hampshire Governor John Sununu helped Bush I win his state's primary after a disastrous showing in Iowa. Sununu would become Bush's chief of staff, a job for which he was ill suited.

Second, both Bushes are best when on the attack in a political campaign. They know how to define an opponent and they know how to make a memorable campaign promise. Bush I pledged "no new taxes" while Bush II hinted that his administration would appoint Supreme Court Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Once safely elected, they run the government on cruise control. Tough fights with the opposition become the exception instead of the rule. Inconvenient campaign promises are discarded, always for the best of reasons.

Third, both Bushes are famous for their long memories and their zeal in punishing dissenters. The Bush White House of 1989 -1992 was thoroughly purged of anyone suspected of Reaganite tendencies. The Bush White House of 2001 until today is justifiably famed for its leak-free loyalty. No poisoned pen memoirs or "behind the scenes" interviews.

Fourth, both Bushes are moderate members of a conservative Republican Party. Bush I ran against Ronald Reagan in 1980. Bush II sounded like John McCain, a "reformer with results" until McCain himself entered the race. Recall that candidate Bush denounced House Republicans for "balancing the budget on the backs of the poor" during one of their fights with Bill Clinton.

Shake these four qualities together and out comes a Supreme Court nominee like Harriet Miers.

Who is Harriet Miers?

Miers was one year behind Laura Bush at SMU. She was Bush II's personal lawyer in Texas. Miers has been part of the Bush Administration practically from the moment he was sworn in as president. Miers passed the loyalty test long ago.

Given the bruising budget battles that loom in Congress this Fall and with Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay forced to the sidelines, the Miers choice is expected to allow the Bush Administration to avoid the Armageddon-like battle threatened by liberal activists in the wake of the confirmation of John Roberts. Miers relatively scant record of public policy pronouncements is expected to make it hard for Senate Democrats to "bork" her.

Yet Miers does have a record, albeit a scanty one, to defend. According to Leonard Leo, a White House adviser on Supreme Court nominations, Miers has strongly conservative legal views: "She led a campaign to have the American Bar Association end its practice of supporting abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded abortions." She is thought to be a likely pro-business vote if not a conservative one.

Yet, in a June 27, 1992 Texas Lawyer article (Hat tip: The New Republic Miers wrote:

We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction.

Jonah Goldberg over at National Review Online makes an essential point today. If this was George W. Bush's first term, "All other things being equal, would he have made these appointments? I don't think so."

Religious conservatives, especially SILKs (single income, lots of kids) vote Republican not because they profit from tax cuts on capital gains or multi-million dollar estates. They vote Republican so their children can say the Pledge of Allegiance in school, so that traditional marriage might be protected and Roe v. Wade overturned.

The Supreme Court matters to them in a way that it does not matter to the agendas of other parts of the Republican Party. Stealth Supreme Court nominees suggest to religious conservatives that the only thing they can expect from a Republican President is rhetoric.

They recall Bob Dole trying to rev up his failing 1996 presidential run by denouncing Clinton's judges, only to be reminded that he voted to confirm them. They bitterly recall the Souter nomination by Bush I. And some even recall that Sandra Day O'Connor, President Reagan's first Supreme Court choice, was weak on their issues even before her elevation to the Supreme Court.

Kicking a faithful constituency to the curb while groveling for the "Hispanic vote" at every possible opportunity is a good way for the Bush Administration to drive religious conservatives to stay home on Election Day. They can't help making comparisons as to how the concerns of groups whose votes the Republican Party actually wishes to solicit are treated compared to their own. This comparison will not benefit the GOP in 2006 or 2008.

On the bright side, conservative efforts succeeded in blocking the nomination of Hispanic blank slates like Gonzales ("Gonzales is Spanish for Souter") or Estrada for the O'Connor slot, at least until the next vacancy on the Supreme Court occurs.